Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 235 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#71

Post by MostlyStable »

iamnothere wrote: post #22
rpdillon wrote: post #20

This kind of thing reminds me of why I've always felt there shouldn't be a gatekeeper. Add your repos, install your apps. Folks should be allowed to have more than one repo to install apps from.

But if you allow users to have freedom, grandma will get hacked! We should all be told what to do and where to go and rely on gatekeepers for permission, for safety. (And no, of course there’s not any solution that would allow competent individuals to go outside the safe zone.)

There is an easy solution to this: Allow the user to decide whether they want to allow for apps from outside a particular ecosystem. Then Johnny can set up Grandma's phone and (in a deep byzantine menu where she will never accidentally stumble on it, maybe locked behind a pin), Johnny can set it so that Granny's phone can only install software from "Super premium, high class, curated, guaranteed not to hack your phone" walled garden app store. And Johnny, on his own phone, can choose what to download himself, including from the "Buyer Beware, half our shit is malware" dark web app store.

In my opinion, the Apple app store should actually be FAR more curated than it is, and far less curated options should be equally available. The Apple App store (and the Google app store for that matter), should be a relatively small list of apps that have extremely high standards and guarantees. It should essentially be impossible for spammy bullshit to get into these places. User-controlled, parental control like options should determine whether or not other app sources can be installed from (including allowing for specific other sources, so that app source control can be granular and detailed. I should be allowed to add FDroid but nothing else for example).

Done. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. Grandma is safe and Johnny has control over his phone.

But of course, that assumes that keeping Granny safe is actually the reason. Facially obviously, it is not, and is in fact entirely pretextual.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#72

Post by Grombobulous »

dgellow wrote: post #54
Jonovono wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat, but still very subjective. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#spa... You can still always get around them (at least my experience), but it just takes a lot of time

The guideline: (b) Don’t submit apps that are indistinguishable from what's already widely available. Opportunistically creating variants of existing app categories or popular apps degrades App Store discovery, reduces overall app quality, and harms both users and developers. Certain kinds of apps, such as dating, flashlight, sound effects, wallpaper, simple timers, and fortune telling, are well established on the Ap…

This is such a dumb policy, and it's absolutely not even being followed.

I submitted a timer app this year and it got approved. It's literally just a slightly more feature-rich timer.

I made this as a "my first app" type of experience. Never at any point was the quality of my app questioned, and I'm the first person who will tell you that it's not very good.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#73

Post by applfanboysbgon »

echelon wrote: post #47
DrJokepu wrote: post #26

> But that’s not what happened at all. Godier proceeded through a series of escalations up to the App Review Board and the Review Board responded that they determined the original rejection was valid because, I shit you not, “We understand that the app includes a live tarot reading feature.” > It has no tarot function, no horoscopes, and nothing that I, or anyone else I’ve asked, would associate with astrology. I hav…

Is Gruber starting to realize Apple's monopoly is bad? App stores should not exist in a world where only two phone operating systems exist. All apps MUST be installable via web. Come on, EU. Help us out here. Free us from distribution tyranny. Do it before Google morphs into the same hell beast. Soon you won't be able to read unapproved, unattested bytes. It's coming. We need as many freedoms as we can get. Apple can…

> Come on, EU. Help us out here. Free us from distribution tyranny. Do it before Google morphs into the same hell beast.

No can do, EU is busy mandating only Google/Apple devices for national digital ID.

> Soon you won't be able to read unapproved, unattested bytes. It's coming.

happy EU noises

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#74

Post by Grombobulous »

edwinjm wrote: post #4

I am quite an Apple fan, but this dampens my enthusiasm considerably. How many great apps are rejected, but build by people without reach?

Just don't be a fan of corporations. Period.

Even the good ones, looking at you Valve.

Am I happy and satisfied customer of some companies? Yes. Not a fan, though.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#75

Post by ASalazarMX »

modzu wrote: post #62
midtake wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you're lying. Why not add the comment "no tarot function" without reference to whether it existed in the past? A bit confusing because it's a trivial and seemingly unrelated statement but at least then you wouldn't be lying.

because it would be rejected again

"Tarot function is not present in this version, and won't be present in any releases future ever".

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#76

Post by Grombobulous »

lapcat wrote: post #18

From https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/apples-tigh... > In a sworn deposition in the Epic lawsuit, Phillip Shoemaker, the former head of the App Review team, said employees in his department generally did not have a technical background in computer coding. They needed to know how to use a Mac and an iPhone, he said. > “Qualifications were that they could breathe, they could think,” he said. And they ty…

This isn't really a bad thing. That's exactly what you want from an app reviewer. You want someone who has critical thinking skills but is looking at the app from the perspective of a typical customer.

Anything involving technical code review of apps on Apple's scale should be automated anyway.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#77

Post by iamnothere »

baby_souffle wrote: post #64
starik36 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of your coin is that I need to periodically visit my relatives and remove all sorts of malware and adware from their phones. Just like I've done with PCs over the past few decades.

I get your point but neither the Play store or the Apple app store are devoid of malware.

Obviously the solution is to restrict the stores to a small, government-licensed list of apps that are known to be safe and regulated.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#78

Post by ceejayoz »

iamnothere wrote: post #69
ceejayoz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side of this is: Pro: I can use a convoluted process to install an astronomy app Apple didn't like. Con: Billions of dollars of life savings siphoned off with devastating consequences. I'm by no means a maximalist on either side of this, but technologists aren't the only ones who get a say here.

Correct. As a side benefit we can restrict users from installing applications that go against other societal interests, like apps that allow unrestricted communications. The framework is complete for mobile devices, we just need to tackle PCs now.

Loudly dismissing genuine and legitimate concerns may feel good, but it’s not likely to get you what you want, especially at a societal level.

I agree with you on the risks of this sort of protection! But I understand what it’s like for non-technical folks in a technical society. Their needs do matter.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#79

Post by recursive »

midtake wrote: post #39
DrJokepu wrote: post #26

> But that’s not what happened at all. Godier proceeded through a series of escalations up to the App Review Board and the Review Board responded that they determined the original rejection was valid because, I shit you not, “We understand that the app includes a live tarot reading feature.” > It has no tarot function, no horoscopes, and nothing that I, or anyone else I’ve asked, would associate with astrology. I hav…

But then you're lying. Why not add the comment "no tarot function" without reference to whether it existed in the past? A bit confusing because it's a trivial and seemingly unrelated statement but at least then you wouldn't be lying.

You can just add one and then remove it. That way you're not lying. And also it doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with them so you sound like a problem.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#80

Post by ceejayoz »

dgellow wrote: post #58
lazyasciiart wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandma does want tech because she loves sharing pictures with her grandchildren throughout the day. That doesn’t mean she wants to send money to Nigeria through a fake banking app?

You grandma can keep the „restricted“ flag on then. I will be happy to disable it on my device

Grandma will also be happy to disable it when the nice man from Microsoft phone support calls in to remotely fix the viruses she has.
Post reply on HN